Howard (not John) Dean
Lot's of people, including many liberal blogs, have been criticizing Howard (not John) Dean for saying that American cannot win in Iraq. They argue that it makes him, and Democrats by association, look like weak cowards. I guess I feel compelled to weigh in on this, for whatever it's worth.
As far as I can tell, Howard (not John) Dean has been right about just about everything he's commented on since he began his run for president in the 2004 elections. In my judgment, he's right about this too. Frankly, I doubt this is a war that ever could have been "won." That's part of why I was against it from the very start. But, the total incompetence with which it has been waged ever since the initial assault has eliminated any chance of "victory" at this point.
As I've said before, the Shia mullahs are now running the main show in town, and they have no interest in giving any significant power to the Sunni minority. That means we'll almost certainly get something like an Iranian theocratic regime in there unless the insurgents can so destabilize the country that no regime can run it. Take your pick ... a radical Shiite theocracy or a failed state. If you want to call that "victory," so be it, but don't ask me to buy into your characterization of it.
Most of Dean's liberal critics agree with that but see it as impolitic for him to sound as if America is weak. Maybe it is good politics, maybe it isn't good politics. I'm no great judge of that. I certainly knew that when John Kerry said, "I voted for the war before I voted against it," that he had made a tremendous error. Indeed, I wrote him a vituperous letter about it on the same day -- a letter, which, like one of my $1,000 checks to his campaign, he never saw. The check was never even cashed either.
The reason I like Dean is that he is willing to state the truth as he sees it, popular or not. That, in my judgment, is what we need in a leader. In fact, rather than making him look weak, as many have suggested, I think his willingness to put his opinions on the table unvarnished makes him look strong and self-confident. What made Kerry look weak was the fact that he tried to be on every side of every issue, always watching the polls before deciding what side to lean to. That's certainly not what Dean is doing, and I applaud him for resisting that temptation.
Update: ChiTom reminds me of the fact that I obviously had a senior moment when writing this. Of course, I meant Howard Dean, not John Dean. Ah, the similarities between then and now, but those of you who are younger than I (mosst of you) will not remember!
As far as I can tell, Howard (not John) Dean has been right about just about everything he's commented on since he began his run for president in the 2004 elections. In my judgment, he's right about this too. Frankly, I doubt this is a war that ever could have been "won." That's part of why I was against it from the very start. But, the total incompetence with which it has been waged ever since the initial assault has eliminated any chance of "victory" at this point.
As I've said before, the Shia mullahs are now running the main show in town, and they have no interest in giving any significant power to the Sunni minority. That means we'll almost certainly get something like an Iranian theocratic regime in there unless the insurgents can so destabilize the country that no regime can run it. Take your pick ... a radical Shiite theocracy or a failed state. If you want to call that "victory," so be it, but don't ask me to buy into your characterization of it.
Most of Dean's liberal critics agree with that but see it as impolitic for him to sound as if America is weak. Maybe it is good politics, maybe it isn't good politics. I'm no great judge of that. I certainly knew that when John Kerry said, "I voted for the war before I voted against it," that he had made a tremendous error. Indeed, I wrote him a vituperous letter about it on the same day -- a letter, which, like one of my $1,000 checks to his campaign, he never saw. The check was never even cashed either.
The reason I like Dean is that he is willing to state the truth as he sees it, popular or not. That, in my judgment, is what we need in a leader. In fact, rather than making him look weak, as many have suggested, I think his willingness to put his opinions on the table unvarnished makes him look strong and self-confident. What made Kerry look weak was the fact that he tried to be on every side of every issue, always watching the polls before deciding what side to lean to. That's certainly not what Dean is doing, and I applaud him for resisting that temptation.
Update: ChiTom reminds me of the fact that I obviously had a senior moment when writing this. Of course, I meant Howard Dean, not John Dean. Ah, the similarities between then and now, but those of you who are younger than I (mosst of you) will not remember!
posted by walldon | 9:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home